Targeting Barton Won’t Help Obama, If The GOP Grows A Spine

By
June 20, 2010

h/t Instapundit for this defense of Joe Barton from Reihan Salam.

GOP Rep. Joe Barton spoke the truth when he called the $20 billion agreement between the White House and BP a "shakedown," writes Reihan Salam.

As for this nonsense from Rahmbo, with even more here, as Democrats try to make the GOP the BP caucus, it shouldn't do them any good in the broad sense. It will play to their far Left base, but most Americans know better. And it's up to the GOP to show some leadership for a change and speak for them.

As the political aftershocks from Rep. Joe Barton’s expression of sympathy for British Petroleum continue, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel promised Sunday that President Barack Obama hopes to make sure that voters don’t forget the gaffe anytime soon.

Barton's comment was imprudent only from a PR sense. In substance, it has much merit. And the GOP should have the sense and the backbone to ultimately stand behind him on the merits, while acknowledging it was ill-timed. If the GOP wants to convince people it's actually ready to lead this country, than they had better start showing some leadership – and less of the hand-wringing and political posturing they've been engaged in for over a decade.

Everything BP did, or didn't do, was done with the approval and alleged oversight of the government. And anyone who has tried to do anything from build a deck on their home in the Northeast, to work at an industrial site, knows how annoying and omnipresent is the government, most particularly the environmental regulators.

It isn't as if we've had a lack of environmental regulation over recent decades. One can't even buy a good furniture finishing oil, or a super-effective pesticide today, thanks to Washington. But now Obama and the Democrats want us to believe the oil spill is the result of resistant Republicans, or a lack of regulations? Good luck selling that nonsense.

Some people may avoid BP stations for a spell, but they aren't told to rely on BP for the protection of the environment. And the majority of Republicans have always preached prudence and practicality, as opposed to the vast environment-related regulatory schemes Democrats routinely tout to appease their environmental activist base. And they own DC right now, not the GOP.

This oil spill is a failure of Big Government and a failure of Obama and the Democrats in the public's eyes. And nothing is going to change that, unless the GOP lies down and rolls over, as it too often does. The GOP needs to push back hard against this demagogy. They should be talking about drilling in ANWR and closer in to the coast, where a catastrophe like this would never have occurred on this scale.

No more surrendering to the environmentally obsessed and the tree hugging crowd. Americans want sound, practical solutions that work. Big Government and the incredible restrictions it has put on the oil industry that forced drilling so far out and so deep is as much to blame for this fiasco, as is BP. And Republicans had better grow a set and be prepared to make the case, not sit back in acquiescence over some fantasy of capturing the environmentalist vote.

Please consider supporting RiehlWorldView with a small donation
, by shopping at Amazon via our Associate link in the sidebar or by re-distributing our content across the Web with the options below. Thank you.


Comments:
  1. anon says:

    Oy, that is about the dumbest thing I have heard in a long time.
    Talk about drilling ANWAR and closer to the coast while oil is stil gushing from the well? Jesus Christ, Dan, don’t ever try for a career in PR!! Do you want the Democrats to keep control of Congress?????
    The environmental groups obviously had something going for them since BP and the gov. have done virtually nothing to stop the flow of oil…if you cannot fix a problem your rig creates, however unlikely, then you shouldn’t have the rig in the first place. So this was a gov. failure but not of too much regulation but of lax regulation, here the liberals are right.
    The GOP needs to talk about the rule of law here, not drill baby drill which was always stupid. Of course they’d be in a better position on the rule of law stuff if the Bush Administration and GOP Congress had shown more respect for same, but thankfully, the Democrats have even LESS respect for the law than Bush and hte Tom DeLay contingent.
    Rule of law vs. big government shakedown is something a normal person can understand, they can understand that the gov. has lots of power to threaten and that this is not the right way to get BP to pay for something….whining about tree huggers and environmentalists and more drilling when oil and dead animals are washing up on shore is just beyond the pale stupid.
    Barton was right, but should have kept his mouth shut, he did give Obama a great PR help. There is nothing wrong with desiring to protect the environment, it isn’t weak or silly or irrelevant. Stop drinking your own kool aid here.

  2. Philip McDaniel says:

    The true mark of an administrator is how he gets people to do what he wants done. Instead of threatening and arm twisting BP to set up a 20B fund for the gulf, suggesting to BP that they would go along way toward improving their image and help people in the gulf states if they offered to set up a fund…and that the US government would help them by setting up a mechanism to manage this effort. Same result, different approach. Same with efforts to stop the incursion of oil onto the shores. Work with, not in apparent opposition to those trying to so solve the problem. There in lies the problem — an administration that does not know how to administrate. First you have to have a clear plan then proceed to implement it. The old adage is that ‘you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.’

  3. anon says:

    Well, we don’t know how Obama got BP to give the gov. basically $20B with no strings. I think it was stupid of BP to do because they’re not going to get any good PR out of it, maybe if they’d waited for a few months until the worst of the clean up was finished….they think this will cause Obama and the Dems to go easier on them, but it won’t. They will bankrupt BP if they can. Didn’t anyone learn anything from the tobacco settlement–instead of giving them breathing room, they handed their enemies billions, they are still getting sued and because of the consent decree public opinion on who was responsible..smokers or the companies did a 180.
    Don’t get me wrong, I think BP is responsible for the costs of cleaning up the spill and reasonable compensation for damages…but, paying people’s salaries who are idle because Obama did another flip flop and stopped all drilling is ridiculous, giving out $20 billion and ceding all control and getting NOTHING in return for it, that is bad business.
    I think this disaster shows though that the federal government simply cannot get anything done…the idea that this monstrous bureaucracy that can’t get out of its own way to protect the gulf is going to be able to administer a national health program, geeze, totally crazy.

  4. If Obummer can’t even handle an oil spill, how can he handle a real crisis to our national security? We need some Dems with big balls and big sticks… Not little pinko commie punks that are all talk and no action…

  5. section9 says:

    Quite the contrary. I think BP went into the meeting with the understanding that they would have to fork over a ton of money. They had probably agreed on the 20 billion dollar figure among their lobbyists before they went in so Obama would come out looking good. Only rubes think that it wasn’t arranged beforehand.

  6. anon says:

    What did BP get out of it? Why would they turn over $20 billion of their money to the government with no strings attached when they are still on the hook for who knows whats in terms of civil and criminal liability?
    I don’t doubt that BP went into the meeting prepared to give up something, but what did they get in return? If they think that Obama will go easy on them, then they got sold a bill of goods by the snake oil salesman in the white house.
    Why does BP want Obama to look good? He’s the most anti business president since FDR, maybe more so.
    Maybe BP is so stupid they deserve everything that is coming their way, I don’t know, I do know that if they think giving Obama a $20 billion no strings attached slush fund is going to help them down the road then they are just as delusional and naive as all the Obamabots that voted for him.

  7. Philip McDaniel says:

    Good point, Section9, but if that’s the case, then BP is as Machiavellian as the present administration. And that may be so…they have been in support of ‘Cap & Trade’ after all — or whatever it is currently called.

  8. betw says:

    What is Obama? He’s basically a smooth-talking version of Jackson and Sharpton, and what are they?
    Shakedown artists.
    Barry is exactly the same.

  9. I am very happy to read your articles, more useful for me especially
    I have the same thing with you. I am so very petrified of this in my lectures.
    thanks articel is very good.

  10. Lightwave says:

    “What did BP get out of it? Why would they turn over $20 billion of their money to the government with no strings attached when they are still on the hook for who knows whats in terms of civil and criminal liability?”
    Because Dictator Obama could have done a hell of a lot worse, and January 2013 is a long way off for a new President.
    Unless, of course, we’re willing to demand a new one before then. Keeping the discussion on rule of law means come next Congress, we can do something about Obama with a GOP-led House and a Senate close enough to understand the stakes.
    Not only does the GOP need to NOT roll over, but we need to make sure they are willing to do what WE want and kick Obama out of the White House.

  11. Toni says:

    The plain and simple fact is the GOP leadership have no cajones. Michele Bachmann has more fortitude in her little finger than all of the male GOP leadership. I’m sick and tired of these weenies and it just shows they aren’t ready for prime time. If the parties were reversed you would never hear the Democrats come out and demand an apology. This is so frustrating.

  12. anon says:

    Demanding an apology was also stupid, they should have said that the media and WH took what he said out of context…which they did…plus, its obvious he isn’t sorry so everyone looks like a fool…and thus, the story is prolonged. Otherwise known as shooting yourself in the foot twice.
    I’m telling you, we need a third party, the Republicans have lost whatever capability and professionalism they had under Reagan and Bush 41, the new crop is keystone cops bad, embarassingly bad, dangerously bad because they keep failing to capitalize on Obama’s mistakes. Just as he was about to finally be blamed for doing nothing for 2 months on the spill other than give another lame speech, BOOM, the GOP diverts attention and lets the Dems go back to their corporate overloads message. WTF?

  13. Feanor Maker of the Silmarils says:

    If Mitch McConnell’s is the answer to growing a spine – get accustomed to a hunched over GOP with scoliosis. At what point in the past 10 years has GOP leadership ever demonstrated a spine? We are relying on the same effete leadership in the GOP that lost its way, and ripped on conservatives until they realized the Tea Party movement had some teeth to now take Democrats to the woodshed. It won’t happen because they are not the people to do it. We can’t even rely on unelected leaders in the GOP to show spine – Michael Steele (MR. ABSENT WITHOUT LEAVE ON THE GULF SPILL) , and the ones that do have a spine– Palin, Bachman, Paul, Rubio, etc, etc are outcasts to the GOP establishment. So, watch as Republicans now get blamed for Obama’s incompetence because the GOP leadership can’t see past the next cocktail party, or are afraid of upsetting their talking point writers for the GOP leadership: Brooks ,Frume and probably even Dan’s whipping boy Conner F.

  14. gsr says:

    Bachman, Palin and Brewer are the GOP/conservative women who will either rule the party or the party will slowly disintegrate into meaninglessness. The GOP men are without stones.
    Either we will a CONSERVATIVE/Nationalist(in the good sense – patriotic American) party or learn to speak Spanish and get a Mooooslim prayer rug, cuz you’re gonna need both.

  15. Dave Walk says:

    Barton is right, bad timing, or should have stressed the rule of law issue. The problem with this well is not the water depth, but the proximity to the La. coast. If this was even 100 miles furter out, I dont think the impact would be near as bad. may not have even reached the coast. I was in the Bay of Campeche when Ixtoc#1 was burning. It was far out so the impact on the coast was some, but not that bad. We have a lot of oil 200miles out it needs to be developed. This blowout is a result of human error not mechanicle or technicle difficulties. BP did things on the fly and didn’t think them through. It could have been avoided. I suspect the drilling engineer who described Macondo as a well from hell was pretty green. There have been many wells drilled with problems, they just take longer and cost more and don’t blow out if handeled right. I suspect inexperience in the onshore engineers.

  16. anon says:

    Oh I’m sure it was human error, it always is….doesn’t change the fact that BP appears to have no reasonable fail safe ‘worst case’ plan for such a failure and so, I judge that we aren’t able technologically to drill wells that deep. Also, just becuase oil wouldn’t be washing up right on shore doens’t mean that the actual impact would be less–only less camera friendly–since we wouldn’t see oil washing up right oh the shore line, it would and is still incredibly destructive. I’m with the tree huggers on this one, we have to find alternative energy solutions, not just tap out every last drop of oil no matter the cost to the surrounding environment. Peak oil or not, we need to shift over to solar/nuclear.
    I’m not sure the party hasn’t already disintegrated into meaninglessness, I don’t know what the Republicans really stand for at this point, I don’t see much pro-active messaging going on. Not sure Palin or Bachman are the answer, GOP needs some intellectuals as well, a successor to Newt. I personally like Rand Paul but he will never play nationally the race baiters will never allow it.
    The GOP needs to regroup around its core principles, which in my opinion are low taxes, small government, personal responsibility and a strong defense. They need to jetison the automatic hostility to any and all environmental regulations and they need to move beyond gay marriage and abortion, or rather, put them in the proper perspective.

  17. jppcan says:

    After our moooslim “intellectual” currently in the White House, the last thing the American people will go for in 2 1/2 yeas is another “academic/intellectual”.
    The nation craves practical, common sensed leaders. Smaller government, limited powers, strong national defense, strong national pride, self reliance (of the nation and of the individual).
    Stop the nanny state.

  18. Lightwave says:

    CNBC’s Simon Hobbs is asking the right questions.
    http://www.cnbc.com/id/37761163/
    Where is the rule of law?
    Where is the military?

  19. anon says:

    “Mooslim” and similiar stupid crap just makes republicans look stupid. Obama is not a Muslim, he’s a prissy faux intellectual.
    I say Chris Christie should be looked at seriously for VP or president..he’s a blue collar plain spoken family guy who “Joe Six Pack” can definitely relate to, and he has unquestionable balls of steel.
    The rule of law is part of America’s past now and Obama deeply despises the military so he won’t want to get them involved. He prefers to sit on his a&& and extort money from BP for a slush fund to be used for who knows what.

  20. WPE says:

    I think you got it wrong, I think Joe was actually saying:
    “Please, please don’t take my campaign donations away. I’ll do anything, Tony, just name it. Just keep the money flowing.”
    Barton has received $100,470 in campaign donations from oil and gas interests since the beginning of 2009, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The same group reported that since 1990, political action committees of the oil and gas industry and people who worked for it have given more than $1.4 million to Barton’s campaigns, the most of any House member during that period.
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100617/ap_on_bi_ge/us_gulf_oil_spill_bp_s_ally

  21. anon says:

    Yeah? So, and Obama got more money from Wall Street than McCain did, and I’m sure Chris Dodd got more money from banking than say Barton did, ya know, because Dodd’s area is banking and Barton’s area is energy.
    If you want to say that lobbyist money has corrupted Washington then I will agree with you , but don’t pretend that Barton is the only guy who got a lot of oil and gas money or that somehow Democrats are immune from corporate money…wherever its coming from…because that insults my intelligence.
    You would expect a guy whose district is heavy with energy jobs to get a lot of money from, you know, energy companies, it kind of goes without saying.
    I don’t think Joe has to worry about oil money flowing to his campaign, whether he said anything or not, in fact I’m 100% sure he would have been a more effective advocate for BP if he had kept his mouth shut, I think maybe he really thinks that BP should be paying money through the normal legal channels, not some extra judicial slush fund that has no controls on it….imagine that, a Republican who is sticking up for due process. LOL.

  22. Barack Obama says:

    WPE, I managed to funnel over $650 million — all completely untraceable, thanks to my disabling of all auditing checks — into my pockets for the 2008 election, and you think that Barton getting just over a million for the last 20 years is impressive?
    He’s a money-laundering piker.

  23. WPE says:

    I’m not pretending, it’s Barton who gave a full-blown apology to BP on the floor of Congress. He’s the senior Republican on the committee, not some back-bencher. My guess, Republicans have disavowed Barton’s apology because they know how toxic being seen as BP’s lackey as the oil continues to gush. Try to sell that whole shake-down thing to the people in the Gulf who are watching their lives destroyed under BPs oil slick.
    The rest of the original post is as stupid as was Barton’s apology. BP’s responsible for the spill. It was their project, their plans, their well, their f***up.
    As for the belief that opening ANWR and the Near Shore would close all the DeepWater wells is just fantasy. There’s not enough oil in ANWR, the Near Shore AND the Deep Water wells to quench our oil thirst – we import 60% of all the oil we need.
    Drill, Baby, Drill!!

  24. Aine says:

    That’s one big “IF,” Dan.
    If the GOP grows a spine, it will be because the women of the party have more testosterone than the men clearly have. I’m sorry Barton apologized: it’s the first time we’ve heard a politician speak unvarnished truth in a long while.
    I couldn’t be more pleased to see the GOP women steering the party. McConnell and Boehner are bending over backwards to appease Dems and Obama yet again?! Puhleez. Theses fellas are all testicularly-challenged.

  25. Barack Obama says:

    “Drill, Baby, Drill!!”
    That sounds a lot like the speech I gave a week before the safety-award-winning Deepwater Horizon rig exploded, WPE.
    “So today we’re announcing the expansion of offshore oil and gas exploration, but in ways that balance the need to harness domestic energy resources and the need to protect America’s natural resources. Under the leadership of Secretary Salazar, we’ll employ new technologies that reduce the impact of oil exploration. We’ll protect areas that are vital to tourism, the environment, and our national security. And we’ll be guided not by political ideology, but by scientific evidence. ”
    (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/01/science/earth/01energy-text.html)
    (And you can tell this is genuine, because just like every one of my other speeches when you look back at it a few months after I gave it it reads like a huge joke with my key points being the punchlines. “protect areas that are vital to tourism, the environment, and our national security” – hahahaha)

  26. anonymous says:

    Barry is a Muslim, in my opinion. There has been much evidence pointing to this fact, from his own mouth, and events in his life. I believe it will be only after he leaves office that the American people will find out he is both a Muslim and not a natural born citizen. Because he will not admit either, it is a matter of looking at facts, and forming an opinion based on those.
    Personally I believe we are “dependent” on foreign countries for oil by choice. Strategically, if we use the other country’s oil supply up, then America will continue to have it’s resources for decades and centuries to come. I think it’s a great idea to some countrys’ oil resources drained, rather than having the funding to press international proxy wars against Jews, Western culture and anything else not jiving with 7th century logic. People tend to forget about backwards countries with no funding. Due to the fact most have not been developing a modern capitalist economy, or investing in educating citizens for better jobs, once that oil money is gone, they will be throwing rocks at each other, rather than rockets. Frankly, let’s use all of the middle east’s oil because without something so easy to exploit, they will eventually have to join the rest of the world in the modern age.

  27. anon says:

    If that is truly an Obamas quote, I mean, what else is there to say? Is there any better example of how vapid his rhetoric is…hey, its all good, we can drill baby drill and make money and save the environment and all have ponies. It is truly a sad commentary on America that this country would have elected this dipsh*t whose every speech is a study in bs where everyone gets their way. Of course I realize that many of us saw through this charade, but he still won the election…ponies for everyone. How sad is that.
    PS…we don’t even get most of our oil from the ME for crying out loud, we get it from freaking Canada and Venezuela, good lord, we don’t have enough oil reserve to be energy independent, even Joe Barton will tell you that.

  28. ThomasD says:

    Every time the dems try to bring up Barton the right needs to go to the actual transcript of his remarks and point it that it really was a shakedown and that Obama – the ‘legal scholar’ – had no legal authority to accept or assume control over those funds.
    Everyone knows it was BP trying to buy protection from their number one client.
    If Rahm wants to keep bringing this up, we need to use it as an opportunity to repeat the message – no apology necessary.
    And also mention that Obama has done nothing to stop the leak, nor anything effective to clean up the oil.

  29. anon says:

    I agree.
    Talk about due process, due process protects the residents of the gulf a lot more than some extra judicial fund where they can make up the rules for disbersement as they go along.
    Plus, Republicans using due process to support their position will drive the Democrats more bat sh*t crazy than they already are.
    No need even to mention shakedown, as probably right now a lot of people think BP deserves to be victimized…just that due process protects the citizens as well as other businesses that might have an accident in the futre, now the precedent has been set that the company can make a payoff to the government and then??? no one knows.

  30. WPE says:

    All president’s give speeches like that — it’s part of the job description. You know, tell us we can cut taxes and cut the deficit, go to war and not pay for it, blah, blah, blah. The list of vapid speeches by President’s is pretty long.
    But honest speeches don’t get you very far. Particularly when there’s no clear short-term solution for our oil addiction. And if the Repubs take back the House, BP Lackey Joe Barton will be chairman of the Energy Committee – – my bet is he’ll run his committee as a wholy owned subsidiary of Big Oil and any law that passes his way that might hurt Big Oil will die a sudden death.
    Maybe Obama should have said something like this:
    “Tonight I want to have an unpleasant talk with you about a problem unprecedented in our history. With the exception of preventing war, this is the greatest challenge our country will face during our lifetimes. The energy crisis has not yet overwhelmed us, but it will if we do not act quickly.
    It is a problem we will not solve in the next few years, and it is likely to get progressively worse through the rest of this century.
    We must not be selfish or timid if we hope to have a decent world for our children and grandchildren.
    We simply must balance our demand for energy with our rapidly shrinking resources. By acting now, we can control our future instead of letting the future control us.

    The most important thing about these proposals is that the alternative may be a national catastrophe. Further delay can affect our strength and our power as a nation.
    Our decision about energy will test the character of the American people and the ability of the President and the Congress to govern. This difficult effort will be the “moral equivalent of war” — except that we will be uniting our efforts to build and not destroy”
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carter/filmmore/ps_energy.html
    That would’ve been President Jimmy Carter in 1977. Cue the Carter Bashing.

  31. anon says:

    Jimmy Carter is a kind, honorable and intelligent man.
    He was a very, very ineffectual president.
    His numbers didn’t tank because of his sweater speech about malaise or because he told the truth about energy, I believe that his numbers started to tank when he demanded everyone in the cabinet tender their resignation, they called it Carter’s purge. It showed America that Carter didn’t have what it took to be president, to manage the federal gov. or even his own cabinet members and it was all downhill from there. He also did a bad job with the Iranian hostage situation, a US president looking militarily weak is political suicide. Period.
    It is my opinion that Obama’s pandering has hit a new high, higher than Bush, Clinton or Reagan. Not every presidential speech is calculated so that 90% of people listening can decide he agrees with them, ha, talk about Slick Willie.
    Obama I believe is on his way to Carter II, though he’s a lucky guy, so something could come along and rescue him from his own incompetance…or the GOP could continue to shoot itself in the foot over and over again and so he will still look better than those fools.

  32. WPE says:

    You’re welcome to your opinion. Personally, when a president tells the country it can go to war, make no sacrifice, and actually have a tax cut, I kinda think that sets a pretty high bar for pandering.

  33. Actually, Carter’s an excellent example — he demanded other people conserve, but then wasted energy freely himself.
    Sort of like shrieking Pelosi and her 757 making weekly transcontinental trips, or Obama firing up Air Force One to fly 110 miles so he can arrive in style at an Obama Party conference, or Al Gore and his multiple houses that burn up multiples of the amount that the average American family uses, or all the Obama Party celebrities tooling around in their Hummers and Range Rovers.
    Again, it’s just a matter of the nomenklatura mentality of the Obama Party. They have absolutely no intention of living by the rules that they impose on others.

  34. anon says:

    No, it is not the same.
    We went to war and a tax break was given, there can be no equivocating about it. There were no Bush speeches where it sounded like we were going to invade Iraq and not invade Iraq, where supporters and opponents of the war could come away each believing the president supported their position. It was clear we were going to invade Iraq.
    Same thing on the tax breaks, they were going to happen, Bush supported them, he never sounded like he supported tax breaks and was also against them.
    That is the difference….Bush took a lot of wrong positions, but you cannot fault him for equivocating about them, it was always crystal clear where he stood and what he was going to do.
    Obama, not so much. He’s for drilling, no he’s against it, no he’s for it, now he’s against it. He’s sort for affirmative action, but not really, he’s sorta for a meritocracy, he’s super for public schools, but then, super for vouchers and charter schools.
    Bush: You’re not getting a pony, you’re getting a cow, a cow is better anyway, deal with it.
    Obama: Everyone is getting a pony or a cow or whatever they want, I am all about hope and change.

  35. WPE says:

    You mean like saying you’re against nation building, then doing nation building — BIG F***ING TIME?
    Or being against a 9/11 commission, then for it?
    Or being for Free Trade, unless you need the West Virginia votes? Tariffs on Steel!!!!
    Or being against Federal intervention into same-sex marriage? Then being for a constitutional amendment to ban it?
    Being against a Homeland Security Department, then for it?

  36. anon says:

    You’re still not understanding.
    I’m saying that an Obama speech is all rhetoric, that the listener will believe Obama agrees with him in most cases because his speeches are all slight of hand and equivocation, something for everyone, its impossible to know what he really means or stands for, its all ponies all the time….I am saying he purposey obfusciates what his position is, or more likely, he doesn’t have a real position, its all dependent on the politcal expediency and the moment.
    Bush was not like this, he was black and white, you are for me or against me, axis of evil, etc. etc.
    I’m not even really talking about CHANGING your position, though I did bring that up, I am talking about NO ONE knowing what your real position is so that you can please everyone….this is how Obama got elected, and that is pandering on a different level than pandering to your base or moving left/right/or center after the primary…
    No there there, that’s what I am saying that Obama has no serious convictions and what convictions he does have he will abandon for expediency at the first sign of trouble. His supporters want to think this means he is thoughtful and flexible, but I think it means he is an empty suit who believes in nothing beyond the career of Obama.

  37. The funny thing about this is watching WPE have a meltdown trying to accuse Bush of doing all these horrible, evil things……which he insists are perfectly acceptable for Obama to do.

  38. anon says:

    Well, at this point, I think its safe to say the best thing for Bush’s presidency so far has been Obama’s presidency…he now supports the Patriot Act, reserves the right to use enhanced interrogation, hasn’t closed Gitmo, hasn’t left Iraq [the media failure to report on the increases in violence is another story I guess], he reversed on drilling until the BP debacle..I’m sure there are many more Bush policies that Obama is carrying forward which I can’t think of right now.
    Again, never let it be said that I think Bush was a good president, I think he was a terrible president and that the Iraq War was a massive blunder, but Obama’s failure to repudiate so many things that he claimed he would repudiate cannot help but soften the blow of historical judgement.

  39. WPE says:

    Yeah, if your standard for communication is B-Movie one-liners, then Bush is pretty much your guy. “Mission Accomplished”, “Dead or Alive”, ‘Yer fer us or agin us”. Soooooo enlightening.
    Funny, Bush leaves the White House, first thing he does, sell the ranch in Crawford and move to the Big City. It was all a BS image-making con job.
    Back to the actual topic of the thread: Barton simply reflects that real thinking of the Republican party, that corporations should be allowed to do anything they want. No regulation, no oversight, no nothing.
    Drill, Baby, Drill!!
    *****************
    The funny thing about this is watching NDT have a meltdown trying to accuse Obama of doing all these horrible, evil things……which he insists were perfectly acceptable for Bush to do.

  40. anon says:

    God are you really that much of an idiot????????????????
    Did you even read his actual quote? You know the one where he says BP needs to pay but it should be through legal channels, courts, criminal investigation.
    I thought that, um, it was the Democrats who were champions of due process and rule of law. I guess not, or rather, like almost all liberal “principles” it is all dependent on the situation, due process is REALLY important for a child rapist, cop killer or an illegal alien, but a corporation, nah, who needs due process if we can scare them into giving some dollars with no strings attached. sOOOOOOO TYPICAL.

  41. WPE says:

    BP’s doing it voluntarily — last check, that was still legal.
    Funny, a post or two ago, Obama was an empty suit with no ideas, no real position. Now he’s able to bully the fourth largest company in the world into capitulating to him. Who’s the idiot here?
    BP made almost $20 BILLION in profit last year alone, even more the previous two years. They can hire enough attorneys to tie it up in court for the next 20 years, just like Exxon did with the Valdez case. And they could have done that by simply saying no.
    They did it for one reason — they think it’s the smart thing to do.
    “Shares in oil giant PLC jumped as much as 9.8% in London a day after the company struck a deal with the Obama administration to set aside $20 billion to cover costs of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.”
    Several analysts upgraded the embattled company to a “buy” recommendation, despite BP’s promise to cancel at least $7.8 billion in dividends, sell off $10 billion in assets and reduce capital expenditure by at least $4 billion as it looks to build up the $20 billion fund over the next 3 1/2 years. The fund won’t cover any civil or criminal penalties.
    All the measures were announced after European markets had closed on Wednesday, following a meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama, whose criticism of the company has played a big part in a steep collapse in its share price recently.
    “BP’s package agreed with President Obama should cool the political heat and provide some degree of comfort to equity and bond markets, shareholders,” said Evolution Securities analyst Richard Griffith.

  42. WPE says:

    Well, after telling me Obama’s an empty suit with no ideas, no real positions, you know apparently believe he’s bullied the fourth largest corporation in the world into contributing to his personal slush fund.
    Really, who is the idiot?
    First, there’s no confusion about who’s responsible — BP’s already admitted that and promised to pay for damages. There are no other suspects, no guilt to prove.
    And for BP, it’s not that much money. It made over $160 billion from 2001 to 2009. $20 billion? A drop in the bucket.
    BP created the escrow account voluntarily and did it for one reason, they think it’s the smart thing to do. They could have easily said no and simply litigated the issue like Exxon did with the Valdez spill, which was in the courts for almost 20 years. But BP’s real problem is the financial markets, a tanking stock price, and the ability to borrow money.
    What happened after they announced the deal?
    “Several analysts upgraded the embattled company to a “buy” recommendation, despite BP’s promise to cancel at least $7.8 billion in dividends, sell off $10 billion in assets and reduce capital expenditure by at least $4 billion as it looks to build up the $20 billion fund over the next 3 1/2 years. The fund won’t cover any civil or criminal penalties.
    All the measures were announced after European markets had closed on Wednesday, following a meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama, whose criticism of the company has played a big part in a steep collapse in its share price recently.
    “BP’s package agreed with President Obama should cool the political heat and provide some degree of comfort to equity and bond markets, shareholders,” said Evolution Securities analyst Richard Griffith.”

  43. anon says:

    He’s still the president, devoid of any original ideas or strong convictions or not. The US is still the strongest and richest nation in the world, whether we are in an irreversible decline or not.
    I personally think it was a stupid thing for BP to do because they have no control over the fund and they have no way to get Obama to keep his side of whatever agreement they might have had, they are still on the hook for billions in civil liabilities and possibly criminal liabilities as well…get these cases in front of juries in Louisiana and you’ll see BP bankrupted very quickly.
    BPs deal with Obama doesn’t relieve them of any obligations whatsover, so upgrading their stock after they gave away $20 billion and got zip in return is one more example of the absolute worthlessness of all Wall Street analysts and so called ‘valuation’.
    Time will tell. I expect massive fraud, for the monies to be diverted to all kind of Democratic pet projects…even worse than the stimulus, and for Congress and the courts to eventually bankrupt the company .

  44. “Funny, Bush leaves the White House, first thing he does, sell the ranch in Crawford and move to the Big City. It was all a BS image-making con job.”
    Oh really?
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/21/us/21crawford.html
    Of course, the reason why you would be thinking that is because it’s a lie told by your Barack Obama and his puppets, and you never question or criticize anything your Obama and your Obama Party tell you.
    Next time perhaps you could exercise some intellect and actually do research instead of repeating Obama talking points. Then you wouldn’t look like such a fool for telling obvious lies that anyone could easily refute.

  45. WPE says:

    Damn, looks like I was wrong, Shrub does still own the thing. Congrats NDT, ya finally caught me on one.

  46. SacTownMan says:

    “Damn, looks like I was wrong, Shrub does still own the thing. Congrats NDT, ya finally caught me on one.”
    Actually President Carter your DNC/PRAVDA talking points were wrong in another area, but why let something like the truth get in the way of a good ole troll rant??
    “And if the Repubs take back the House, BP Lackey Joe Barton will be chairman of the Energy Committee – – my bet is he’ll run his committee as a wholy owned subsidiary of Big Oil and any law that passes his way that might hurt Big Oil will die a sudden death.
    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/06/joe_barton_may_not_become_chai.html
    Well according to such far right sources like the Washington Compost you missed the truth yet again!
    But as usual you can always be counted on to show up here and spread the “TRUTH” as written by the Daily Koz and Uncle George Soros!!
    You really need to spend more time learning facts so your arguments can make some kind of sense!!
    Like your loser namesake Jimmy Carter you just don’t get it do you?

  47. WPE says:

    Is English a second language for you? Hint: “May not be chairman” does not mean he “will not be chairman”.
    Duh.

  48. joyMc says:

    Mr Barton, whatever he may think of an oil company in deep doodoo; evidently has a little respect for rule of law and due process. That appears to be a rare thing in this republic.